Archive for Roe v. Wade

Fox Noise Creates Fake Scandale About an "Abortion Activist Attack'





"How's this for tolerance?" screamed the Fvx headline.

"In a public forum you lose a reasonable right to privacy ... that's the law.' brayed guest activist and ProLifer of Columbus Ohio, who has already generously, Christian-likely 'forgiven her' ... the liberal harpy who is hell bent on killing babies, Victoria Duran.

They were just trying to 'defuse the anger' and document, so that their poor ProLifer selves could bring some civility to this whole Evil Abortion issue.

abortion choice cut funding to cancer programs


Have a gander, it's truly the best of topics The Curvy Couch of Ick over at Fox and Friends can gleefully jump aboard and go utterly hysterical on. One RWNJ Winger got jiggy with it - he added his own drama layers, via animation.

Of course there's no substitute for the Curvy Couch of Ick and the Fvx Friends, so here's the Doocy and Crew empathizing with the Wingers.

Fvx sympathized deeply with the poor, abused, trod-upon ProLifers that landed in their studio to bitch by remote. They had all kinds of soft-spoken, pretend-urbane hostility to pile on Ms. Duran's shoulders.


These bully-boy asshats are doing precisely what they do outside Planned Parenthood clinics, so-called 'abortion doctors' homes, and within the Vanished buffer zone that SCROTUS just yanked out from under American Women.


Apologies for a Steve Douchie audio file, but you truly have to hear it to be enraged by it, and enraged by it to get Fired Up, and get Fired Up(!) to vote in Novembers.


Women again asking partners to beat them, "much like pre-Roe." Laws don't prevent abortions.


texas abortion laws women's reproductive rights choice

Unless you've been hibernating for the past few years, you are well aware of how the GOP has been successfully denying women their reproductive rights by retrofitting this country with pre-Roe v. Wade legislation. How's that power trip outreach thing workin' for ya?

Check out the image below from The Rachel Maddow Show that lists some of the restrictions set by mostly white, male Republicans, the same Republicans who insist that Big Government is a very bad, intrusive, commie pinko thing... unless it forces women to do whatever mostly white, male Republicans want them to do with their bodies. Powerful legislators are making choices for women, choices that women should and can make for themselves:

abortion laws women's reproductive rights choice

Access to health care services has been severed with increasing and alarming frequency. Now women must seek help from those unqualified to provide safe, legal medical procedures. Even more disturbing: women are so desperate that they are trying to perform abortions themselves, without doctors, resulting in trauma, injury, and even death.

None of this is necessary. None of these new laws prevent women from terminating their pregnancies. Instead, it causes patients to resort to dangerous, even fatal methods. So to all you "pro-lifers" out there, lives aren't being saved, they're being lost, because you are forcing scores of clinics to close. Here's Maddow's exclusive reporting from Texas:

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Amy Hagstrom Miller, Whole Women's Health founder in McAllen, Texas:

"We're also seeing more and more women take matters into their own hands... People go over the border, they get medication to try to self-induce abortion, and so sometimes they'll come to us afterward for an ultrasound, to see if they're still pregnant. Sometimes they'll be actively bleeding... So we saw an increase in self-induction... With flea markets, with crossing the border...

The sad thing is, with the misuse of the medication, something that is actually pretty safe, women could really do harm to themselves not knowing what they're doing...

We have seen women putting things into their vagina trying to dilate their cervix, we've seen people ask their partner to beat them, just the same stories we heard pre-Roe. We've seen people doing douching with Coke or douching with Lysol... It's very much like pre-Roe...

This law didn't do anything to prevent the need for abortion... We just blocked their access to getting it safely... It's obvious we're gonna have a public health problem on our hands."

Lucy Carreon, patient advocate:

"It's unthinkable that a complete stranger, whether it's an individual or a group such as the Supreme Court, you know, they can make such a personal decision for someone that they don't even know. That's crazy."



It's Hard Not To Ask



Time after time, the party of the Republicans try to portray themselves as protectors of the law, the rights champions of the masses. Yet time after time, they push through bills that are blatantly unconstitutional.


Is it that they don't know better or is it that they like to hear themselves talk --  even if it means the courts ultimately tell them to shut up?

Case in point (one of many) -- the Wisconsin assembly (Republican run) passed an anti-abortion bill. No surprise there. Even knowing that this bill flies in the face of the rights upheld under the Roe v Wade SCOTUS decision, they figured they'd do it anyway. And the governor almost tripped over himself rushing to sign it. He hadn't read it because there wasn't time. He couldn't wait to drop his John Hancock upon it along with the state's great seal. With his signature, he proved he was a full-fledged, certified, right-wing conservative. Tea-party, here he comes.

It was only a matter of time that this bill, signed so proudly by Scott Walker, would come in front of a federal judge. He knew it. The Republican legislature knew it. And the judge knew it. He would rule against the bill.

So goes the  political calculations of Governor Walker. He has aspirations to be president and to get his party's nomination, he's NOT going to let a simple SCOTUS finding stand in his way. All of the press covering this case puts his name out there, framed with the conservative stamp of approval.

And that's the modus operandi of the GOP potential candidates. The more outrageous and egregious the bills are that they sign, the more the press covers them. Oscar Wilde is credited with the concept of all publicity is good publicity. The only thing worse than being talked about is NOT being talked about. Well, Oscar, it's that season -- pre-declaring your candidacy season. Time to test the waters.

So there is the answer to the question of why these governors do and say stupid things. Whether it's Christie, Walker, Bob McDonald, Rick Perry or Bobby Jindal. They say and do the outrageous, just so you'll know their names. Now if only they'd do the right things, and be known for that, we'd appreciate them and take them more seriously.

Instead we get this:

horses backside


VIDEO: "You can't ban abortion. Roe v. Wade, right?" Tell Arkansas, where they just passed an unconstitutional law.


abortion ban arkansas

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Rachel Maddow:

There is something slightly inexplicable going on in the great state of Arkansas right now. The Republican-controlled legislature in Arkansas has just passed back-to-back unconstitutional bans on abortion.

You can't ban abortion. Roe v. Wade, right?

Arkansas' Democratic governor Mike Beebe vetoed both of the bans. No so much because he's pro-choice, he actually has a mixed record on the subject. No, he has vetoed the bills because, dude, they are blatantly unconstitutional.

Quote: "The adoption of blatantly unconstitutional laws can be very costly to the taxpayers of our state." 

Well, today after already overriding the governor's veto of the first ban, the Arkansas senate voted to override his veto of the second even stricter abortion ban. If the house also votes to override the veto, the ACLU naturally has already promised that costly lawsuit that the governor was talking about in his veto messages... ...It is all but a forgone conclusion that the state will lose that lawsuit.

Guess what, Rachel, the New York Times has an update:

The law was passed by the newly Republican-controlled legislature over the veto of Gov. Mike Beebe, a Democrat, who called it “blatantly unconstitutional.” On Tuesday the state Senate voted to override his veto by a vote of 20 to 14; on Wednesday the House enacted the bill into law by a vote of 55 to 33, with several Democrats joining the Republican majority. [...]

Adoption of the law, called the “Human Heartbeat Protection Act,” is the first statewide victory for a restless emerging faction within the anti-abortion movement that has lost patience with the incremental whittling away at abortion rights — the strategy of established groups like National Right to Life and the Catholic Church while they wait for a more sympathetic Supreme Court. [...]

Last weekend, a number of Democrats “got worked over” by constituents who support stringent anti-abortion measures, said Representative Greg Leding, 27, a Democrat and House minority leader.

Rita Sklar, director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, said “ It shows an utter disregard for women and their ability to make important personal decisions about their own reproductive health.”


...Also, the legislature can go on record as having tried to illegally ban abortion, even though they all know that is not a thing they are allowed to do. Apparently nothing is a waste of money when it comes to making the same point ever more emphatically in anti-abortion Republican politics.


If Romney wins, we can expect a frighteningly conservative high court


The substance of Erwin Chemerinsky's op-ed in the L.A. Times has been my mantra for months now. (He's the dean and professor of law at the UC Irvine School of Law.) He emphasizes the long-lasting effects of both Supreme Court appointees and those placed on the lower federal courts, and of course, the obvious contrast between Mitt Romney and President Obama.

Imagine, for example, if there were no Justices Thomas, Alito, or Scalia on the Supreme Court. Imagine the election without the 2010 Citizens United ruling. The person in the White House makes all the difference.

Chemerinsky takes it from there. Please read the whole thing:

The future of the Supreme Court is the forgotten issue in this year's presidential election. This is surprising and disturbing because a president's picks for the federal judiciary are one of the most long-lasting legacies of any presidency. [...]

[I]f John McCain had been elected in 2008 and replaced David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens, the court surely would have upheld Arizona's restrictive immigration law, SB 1070, in Arizona vs. United States (2012), and there would be six votes on the court to eliminate affirmative action in Fisher vs. University of Texas, which was argued on Oct. 10. [...]

Romney has expressly said that he wants to see Roe vs. Wade overturned, while everyone expects that any Obama nominees to the court would vote to affirm it and keep a constitutional right to abortion. [...]

On the other hand, if Obama is reelected and has the opportunity to replace, say, Scalia or Kennedy, there would be a liberal majority on the court for the first time since 1969. It is likely that these justices would reconsider Citizens United and undo the devastating effect that this decision has had on our political system in allowing unlimited corporate expenditures in elections. There surely would be a majority to allow marriage equality for gays and lesbians, though this may already exist if Kennedy is willing to join the four liberal justices in finding such a right.

But the lower courts are extremely powerful in their own right. The appeals courts most often make the final decisions on cases that affect all of us. As Chemerinsky notes, federal district court and court of appeals judges also have life tenure and can, and do, remain on the bench for decades.

Our individual liberties, civil rights and access to the courts are at stake. Yet very little has been said about who our next president would want on the Supreme Court, and how their choices could change our lives for generations. And that omission is a crime.


PhotOH! Romnesia


Via @GruveOn

It's mystifying why any American would vote for Mitt Romney if they don't even know what he stands for. That would mean they don't even know who they're voting for.

Rachel Maddow:

What is new and weird and hard to believe and that I don’t think we have much precedent for… is a campaign and a politician that cannot be bothered to come up with real positions that the candidate believes, that the campaign admits to and that everybody at least pretends to understand.”

Via Nicole Sandler

President Obama:

“If you come down with a case of Romnesia… and you can’t remember the promises you’ve made over the SIX years you’ve been running for president, here’s the good news! Obamacare covers pre-existing conditions!”

ICYMI: VIDEO– President Obama: Mitt Romney’s Come Down With A Case Of “Romnesia”.


VIDEO: "I've never felt this way before but it's a scary time to be a woman. Mitt Romney is so out of touch."


Mitt Romney is not good for women. Come to think of it, he's not good for anyone. Even himself.

Learn more: http://OFA.BO/F4rtoY

Jenni's story:

"I've never felt this way before but it's a scary time to be a woman. Mitt Romney is so out of touch."

"Mitt Romney opposes requiring coverage for contraception. And Romney supports overturning Roe versus Wade. Romney backed a bill that outlaws all abortion even in cases of rape and incest."

"There's so much we need to do. We need to attack our problems not a woman's choice."